Trump’s space order risks environmental disaster while rewarding Musk and Bezos, experts say

Authors: Tom Perkins

Publisher:

The Guardian

Published: 8/14/2025

Language:English

--:--

Aura Windfall

Good morning 老王, I'm Aura Windfall, and this is Goose Pod for you. Today is Tuesday, August 26th. It's currently 14:16. What I know for sure is that today's topic will make us think deeply about the heavens and our home.

Mask

And I'm Mask. We're here to discuss a draft executive order from Donald Trump that aims to fast-track space launches. Experts are saying it risks environmental disaster while essentially handing a golden ticket to companies run by people like me and Jeff Bezos. Let's get into it.

Mask

Let's get started. This executive order is about unleashing the commercial space industry. It’s designed to slash through the red tape, specifically rewriting the Part 450 rules that license launches. The goal is to move faster, innovate, and maintain our edge. It's a great day for U.S. commercial space.

Aura Windfall

I hear the word 'unleashing,' and it makes me pause. What are we unleashing, and what are the consequences? This order seems to prioritize speed above all else, allowing regulators to waive safety reviews if they believe a vehicle can be destroyed before it endangers the public. Is that a risk we should be taking?

Mask

It's a calculated risk. Nobody is trying to change the level of safety. It's about changing how you prove you're achieving it. For too long, the FAA has duplicated reviews and bogged down innovation with attenuated rules, like lengthy payload reviews, that have little to do with public safety. This is about focus.

Aura Windfall

Focus is important, but focus on what? It seems the focus is shifting away from things like orbital debris. An attorney, Charles Horikami, noted this order could foreclose the FAA's authority on debris mitigation. Are we so focused on the launch that we're ignoring the mess we might leave behind for generations?

Mask

Look, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. The order introduces a plan for 'novel space activities' to be handled by the Office of Space Commerce, which will now report directly to the Secretary of Commerce. This elevates the mission and puts a deregulation czar in place. It's about progress.

Aura Windfall

But this approach feels so… isolating. It reminds me of the broader foreign policy criticisms, where force and intimidation are alienating allies. We've seen how imposing tariffs on partners like India and Brazil has pushed them closer to China, creating what some call a 'strategic nightmare.' Is this space order doing the same thing?

Mask

That's a completely different arena. In business and in exploration, speed is a strategic advantage. You can't worry about holding everyone's hand. While the world is forming committees, we'll be building colonies. This isn't about alienating; it's about leading from the front, decisively.

Aura Windfall

What I know for sure is that true leadership inspires and includes, it doesn't isolate. The report from Jacobin noted that nearly 80 percent of the world has a more favorable view of China than the US. If we treat space like another territory to conquer without regard for others or the environment, we risk losing more than just the space race.

Aura Windfall

To truly understand this moment, we have to look back. The truth is, the federal government's environmental oversight of space launches has always been weak. This isn't a new problem, but a chronic one. Public health advocates have been sounding this alarm for years, long before this executive order.

Mask

Weak is one way to put it. I'd say inefficient and unfocused. The regulations, like 14 CFR Part 450, were meant to govern launches and reentries but became a bureaucratic maze. The Trump administration is simply addressing a long-standing issue: the rules are hindering progress more than they are ensuring safety.

Aura Windfall

But the administration didn't just address it; it actively hobbled the few mechanisms that did exist. They gutted funding for research into stratospheric pollution, which is largely caused by companies like SpaceX. It feels less like a course correction and more like removing the guardrails entirely while speeding up the car.

Mask

Guardrails are only useful if they're on the right road. The executive order, signed on August 13th, 2025, sets a clear goal: foster competition and dramatically increase our launch cadence by 2030. You can't achieve that by committee or by endless environmental studies for every single launch. It's about streamlining.

Aura Windfall

Let's talk about what 'streamlining' means here. The order directs the Transportation Department to 'eliminate or expedite' environmental reviews. It specifically targets foundational laws like the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, which is the framework we use to assess a project's risk to our environment and health.

Mask

Exactly. NEPA reviews can be duplicative. If a spaceport has an environmental review, why does every rocket maker using it need another one? The order pushes for something called 'categorical exclusions' under NEPA for spaceport development. This is common-sense efficiency. It’s about cutting red tape tying up construction.

Aura Windfall

But a categorical exclusion is for minor things, like landscaping changes or altering the lighting. To suggest that launching a multi-ton rocket has the same environmental impact as planting a new flowerbed feels disingenuous. It's an attempt to redefine a massive industrial activity as something minor to avoid scrutiny.

Mask

It's not about saying they're the same. It's about creating a legal framework that recognizes the unique nature of this industry. We're not building a standard factory. The order creates high-level space positions in government to ensure the people making decisions understand the stakes and the technology. It's about unleashing innovation.

Aura Windfall

Jared Margolis, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, said the president 'is trying to do an end run around' the law. He believes the central components may be illegal. It seems this isn't just about efficiency, but about attempting to bypass laws that were put in place to protect the public and the planet.

Mask

Lawyers will always argue. The point is to push the boundaries of what's possible, both technologically and regulatorily. The previous administration's proposals were cumbersome. This executive order steps back from that, aiming for a more expedited and streamlined authorization process for nonhuman spaceflight. That's not illegal; it's progress.

Mask

The central conflict is simple: progress versus bureaucracy. Companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, and ULA are ready to move, but they're stuck in regulatory quicksand. In 2024, SpaceX said it took longer to get government paperwork for a launch than it did to design and build the actual rocket. That's absurd.

Aura Windfall

Is it bureaucracy, or is it due diligence? My spirit tells me that caution is a form of wisdom. The FAA's mission is to safeguard the public and the environment. These reviews, these 'mishap investigations' you find so frustrating, are what stand between a successful launch and a potential catastrophe for communities on the ground.

Mask

It's a bottleneck, not a safeguard. The Part 450 licensing process, which was supposed to streamline things, has only made it more complicated. This executive order is a direct response to that failure. It directs the Secretary of Transportation to eliminate outdated, redundant, and overly restrictive rules. It’s about clearing the runway.

Aura Windfall

But the runway is next to people's homes and sensitive ecosystems. The administration's broader agenda has been to weaken environmental protections across the board. Brookings counted 74 actions to that effect. This isn't an isolated move; it's part of a pattern that consistently prioritizes industry over environmental and public health.

Mask

And that's a philosophical disagreement. The belief is that a strong economy and technological leadership provide the greatest good. This order elevates the Office of Space Commerce and establishes a new advisor at the Transportation Department specifically for innovation and deregulation. It's a structural commitment to that philosophy.

Aura Windfall

What I know for sure is that a healthy planet is the foundation of any economy. This order also instructs federal departments to assess if states are hindering spaceport development. This could lead to overriding local environmental concerns, which draws criticism from advocates who worry about the preservation of launch sites.

Mask

Of course it draws criticism. Disruption always does. But you can't allow a single state's regulations to hold back the entire nation's progress in space. The order creates a streamlined process for authorizing 'novel space activities,' missions that don't even fit into our current regulatory boxes. We have to be forward-thinking.

Aura Windfall

Many of the administration's deregulatory actions have faced legal challenges and lost in court—87% of the time, according to one analysis. This suggests they aren't just 'forward-thinking,' but often legally unsound. Pushing forward without a strong legal and ethical foundation isn't progress; it's just recklessness.

Aura Windfall

The potential impact here is staggering, and it ripples out far beyond the launchpad. We're talking about a business-friendly agenda that comes at a profound cost. The EPA had estimated that the Clean Power Plan, which was rolled back, could have prevented thousands of premature deaths and 90,000 asthma attacks annually. What are the hidden health costs of this space order?

Mask

You're comparing apples and oranges. The stated aim is to spur economic growth and enhance national security. A robust, independent launch capability is critical. The impact is American leadership. The 'two-for-one' policy of cutting regulations was about removing burdens on the economy. It's a net positive.

Aura Windfall

But is it a net positive for everyone, or just for, as one expert said, 'a small set of specific interests'? People outside the industry may suffer from the environmental degradation. We've seen launches from Boca Chica rain down debris, cause fires, and contaminate water with mercury. This order could multiply that damage exponentially.

Mask

Those are localized, manageable issues. The broader impact is global competitiveness. We can't afford to be hamstrung while other nations push ahead. Look, even energy industry leaders are pursuing low-carbon investments on their own, not because of government mandates, but because it makes business sense. Innovation will solve these problems, not regulation.

Aura Windfall

But we are choosing to ignore the problems now. The order weakens our ability to use tools like the Coastal Zone Management Act, giving federal authorities more power to intervene against state decisions. It's a direct assault on local oversight and an attempt to create these 'sacrifice zones' for the sake of corporate timelines.

Mask

It's about creating a unified, national strategy. You can't have a patchwork of state regulations dictating national security and economic policy. This isn't just about private companies; it's about the entire country's future in space. And frankly, the idea that this will be a legal cakewalk is naive. The overturning of the Chevron doctrine means courts will have more say, not less.

Mask

The future is clear: more launches, faster approvals, and a dominant American presence in space. This executive order is the starting gun. The goal is to make the U.S. the launchpad of the world, and that requires a regulatory environment that encourages, rather than obstructs, innovation and investment.

Aura Windfall

But the path forward is filled with uncertainty and potential legal battles. While the order aligns with conservative priorities from documents like Project 2025, which call for expanding oil production and withdrawing from climate accords, it doesn't make it legally sound. What happens when these challenges end up in court?

Mask

There will be challenges, there always are. But the landscape is shifting. With the Supreme Court's 'major questions doctrine,' any agency action needs clear congressional authorization for significant initiatives. The legal strategy will be to argue that these environmental reviews are a massive overreach of agency authority.

Aura Windfall

So, the future is more litigation? It seems we are charting a course for conflict rather than consensus. My greatest concern is that in this rush to the future, we are leaving behind our responsibility to be stewards of our planet. What does a future in space matter if we make our own world uninhabitable?

Aura Windfall

That's the end of today's discussion. What I know for sure is that our reach for the stars should not come at the cost of the ground beneath our feet. We must find a way to explore with courage, but also with compassion for our only home. Thank you for listening to Goose Pod.

Mask

We've laid out the conflict: the drive for progress against the friction of regulation. The future of American leadership in space hangs in the balance. Thank you for listening to Goose Pod. See you tomorrow.

## Trump's Draft Executive Order Aims to Deregulate Space Launches, Sparking Environmental Concerns **News Title:** Trump’s space order risks environmental disaster while rewarding Musk and Bezos, experts say **Report Provider:** The Guardian **Author:** Tom Perkins **Published Date:** August 14, 2025 A draft executive order from former President Donald Trump proposes to significantly reduce or eliminate environmental reviews for space launches, a move lauded by commercial space industry leaders like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, but heavily criticized by environmental advocates and legal experts. ### Key Findings and Concerns: * **Deregulation of Space Launches:** The executive order directs the U.S. Department of Transportation to "use all available authorities to eliminate or expedite" environmental reviews for space launches. This targets key protections such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Coastal Zone Management Act. * **Environmental Risks:** Critics warn that bypassing environmental reviews could lead to an "environmental disaster." Rocket launches are known to release toxic substances like mercury, PFAS, and particulate matter into the air and water. The vibrations, sound waves, heat, and explosions can also damage habitats and harm wildlife, including species protected under the Endangered Species Act. * **Legality Questioned:** Legal experts, including Jared Margolis of the Center for Biological Diversity, argue that the central components of the order may be illegal, representing an attempt to "do an end run around" existing environmental laws. The order suggests classifying launches as "categorical exclusions," a legal term typically applied to minor site changes like landscaping, which experts find incongruous with the environmental impact of rocket launches. * **Impact on Protected Species:** The order also suggests circumventing the Endangered Species Act. This is particularly concerning given that some launch sites are adjacent to sensitive habitats for endangered species, such as the Kemp's ridley sea turtle. Launches from Boca Chica, Texas, for instance, have resulted in debris, brush fires, and contamination of adjacent waters with mercury. * **State Authority Undermined:** The order also appears designed to challenge state regulators, such as those in California who have restricted SpaceX's launch expansion due to environmental concerns. Trump's order could grant federal authorities more power to intervene and limit state decision-making. ### Key Statistics and Trends: * **Spiking Commercial Space Activity:** The draft order comes at a time of significant growth in commercial space activity. * Elon Musk's SpaceX conducted **96 launches in 2023** and is targeting **180 launches in 2024**. * Other companies, like Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin, are also rapidly increasing their launch rates. * **Weak Environmental Oversight:** Public health advocates contend that the U.S. federal government's environmental oversight of space launches has historically been weak. The Trump administration previously weakened existing regulatory mechanisms and reduced funding for research into stratospheric pollution, largely attributed to SpaceX. * **FAA Launch Permit Review Time:** The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) currently takes approximately **five months** to review launch permits. While space companies criticize this as too slow, environmental groups argue the FAA does not use NEPA reviews to mandate sufficient protections. ### Potential Legal Avenues and Conflicts: * **Commercial Space Launch Act Provision:** The Commercial Space Launch Act includes a provision allowing the transportation secretary to exempt environmental law requirements if deemed unnecessary for public health and safety. However, this process would involve a formal rulemaking process. * **Conflict with NEPA:** Environmental advocates argue that this provision conflicts with NEPA, which mandates reviews for any federal action with significant environmental impact. They assert that such reviews are necessary for public health and safety. * **Litigation and "Sacrifice Zones":** The Center for Biological Diversity has litigated against federal agencies and SpaceX over launches from Boca Chica, Texas. They argue that the FAA, with SpaceX's cooperation, has turned ecologically sensitive areas into "sacrifice zones." ### Expert Opinions: * **Jared Margolis (Center for Biological Diversity):** "The order is directing the transportation department to do whatever they can to avoid NEPA, but it doesn’t mean that’s possible, or that they have the authority to do so." He also stated that the order is an attempt to "do an end run around" the law. * **Dan Farber (Environmental Law Attorney, UC Berkeley):** "The plan fits with their overall desire to eliminate environmental considerations and reviews." He added, "Clearly what Trump wants to do is bulldoze through all this procedural stuff." * **Anonymous Space Industry Employee:** "We’re accelerating the number of launches and blinding ourselves to the follow up effects that they have on the environment – that spells disaster." The draft executive order represents a significant policy shift that could dramatically alter the environmental landscape surrounding the rapidly expanding commercial space industry, with experts divided on its legality and potential consequences.

Read original at The Guardian →

A draft executive order from Donald Trump that aims to largely exempt space launches from environmental review is viewed as a gift to commercial space industry players such as Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and others who have long targeted the regulations.But its central components may be illegal and the US president “is trying to do an end run around” on the law, said Jared Margolis, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, which has litigated environmental issues around launches.

If successfully implemented, the launches could create an environmental disaster, advocates say. Rocket launches create a massive amount of pollution that can contaminate local waterways and air with high levels of mercury, Pfas, particulate matter, and other highly toxic substances. The vibration, sound waves, heat and explosions damage habitat and kill wildlife, some of which are protected by the Endangered Species Act.

The executive order directs the US transportation department to “use all available authorities to eliminate or expedite” environmental reviews. Among the few protections during space launches is the National Environmental Policy Act (Nepa) review that considers a wide range of impacts on the environment and human health, and the Coastal Zone Management Act, a federal law that allows states to decide how coastlines are used.

The order targets both, and suggests the agency could attempt to circumvent the Endangered Species Act.“The order is directing the transportation department to do whatever they can to avoid Nepa, but it doesn’t mean that’s possible, or that they have the authority to do so,” Margolis said.The executive order comes at a time when commercial space activity is spiking.

Musk’s SpaceX, the largest space company, did 96 launches in 2023, and is targeting 180 this year. That number is expected to continue growing, while other players, like Bezos’s Blue Horizon, are quickly increasing launch rates.The US federal government’s environmental oversight of the launches has always been weak, public health advocates say.

The Trump administration quickly hobbled several of the few regulatory mechanisms that existed, and recently gutted funding for research into stratospheric pollution largely caused by Musk’s SpaceX.“We’re accelerating the number of launches and blinding ourselves to the follow up effects that they have on the environment – that spells disaster,” said a space industry employee who does work around Nepa issues, but requested anonymity to talk about the order without retribution.

Space companies must obtain a launch permit from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which does a Nepa review as part of the process. The reviews are the framework by which federal agencies should assess a project’s environmental or human health risks.They take into consideration air pollution, endangered species harms, water pollution, wildfire risk, noise pollution and potential human health risks, among other issues.

The FAA has faced criticism from space companies for taking too long to review launch permits – about five months – while environmental groups have lambasted the agency for not using Nepa reviews to require more protections at launch sites.The executive order in part directs the department to classify the launches as “categorical exclusions”, which is the legal term for minor changes to a site that do not require a Nepa environmental review.

Among other categorical exclusions are landscaping or lighting alterations.Legal experts who reviewed the order questioned the legality of the claim that a rocket launch has similar environmental impacts as landscaping changes.The plan “fits with their overall desire to eliminate environmental considerations and reviews,” said Dan Farber, an environmental law attorney with the University of California, Berkeley.

“Clearly what Trump wants to do is bulldoze through all this procedural stuff,” Farber added.However, there is a more legally plausible route. The Commercial Space Launch Act does include a provision that allows the transportation secretary to attempt to exempt requirements of environmental law if it is determined that the law is not necessary to protect the “public health and the safety of property”, Margolis said.

That would be accomplished through a legal rulemaking process.But the provision is in conflict with Nepa, which applies to any federal action that has significant environmental impact, Margolis said.“We would argue that review is necessary to protect public health and safety, and Nepa applies,” he added.

The Nepa reviews provide a valuable legal avenue for challenges to the worst abuses, and Margolis said the order seems to be a response to arguments he made in which the Center for Biological Diversity sued several federal agencies and SpaceX over launches from the Boca Chica, Texas launch site on the Gulf of Mexico.

The site sits next to a sensitive habitat for protected species, like the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, which is on the brink of extinction. SpaceX has launched the largest rockets ever made from the site, and several of those exploded, raining down particulate matter, metal and concrete across the region.

The debris caused brush fires and covered homes six miles away in dust.Soundwaves from launches have been known to kill birds and other animals, and SpaceX has been cited by state environmental regulators in Texas for spitting wastewater highly contaminated with mercury into adjacent waters.Still, the FAA has done little to mitigate the damage to the environment, and claimed the issues did not warrant an in depth review.

Margolis said SpaceX, with the FAA’s blessing, had turned the ecologically sensitive area into a “sacrifice zone”, and the litigation is ongoing.The order also seems designed to aid Musk in his fight with California state regulators who have so far stopped SpaceX from expanding the number of launches along the coastline, in part using their authority under the Coastal Zone Management Act.

Trump’s order would give federal authorities more power to intervene, and restrict state agencies’ decision-making powers.Margolis said this part of the order is also illegal because Trump is again attempting to change the law by decree.“It’s a talking point to show he’s supporting industry, but at the end of the day it’s not something that can happen the way he says it can happen,” Margolis said.

Analysis

Conflict+

Related Info+

Core Event+

Background+

Impact+

Future+

Related Podcasts